Re: Is the 787 a failure ?

[Transition Zone]

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 21:23:55 -0500
Local: Thurs, Dec 23 2010 9:23 pm

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> On December 23rd, Boeing announced it is now resuming flight testing on
> ZA004.
> They have updated the power distrubution *software* and will test this,
> along with deployment of RAT before resuming normal testing for
> certification.
> So it appears that the hammer that was left in some electrical cabinet
> probably highlighted some software problems. Thankfully, updating
> software is less tedious than having to dismantly, change a part and
> reassemble the number of 787s already built.

A Week Boeing Would Like To Forget
By Alex Zolbert, CNN, updated 2:01 PM EST, Thu January 10, 2013

More concerns for Dreamliner - (CNN) -- Some passengers pay no
attention to what type of airplane they'll be flying on. Others are
obsessed.
I'd put myself in the middle of the pack, mainly due to the new planes
on offer from Airbus and Boeing.
So I was in slightly better spirits this week, as I boarded the 11-
hour United Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo this week.
It was my first chance to fly on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
But the trip quickly descended into -- certainly not a nightmare --
but definitely a headache.
Dreamliner catches fire at airport

It's a drill millions of travelers know all too well.
After starting the taxi out to the runway Monday morning, we were
informed that there was an issue with the computer system, and they
were unable to start one of the plane's engines. We remained onboard
for nearly 3 hours, as flight attendants sheepishly offered cups of
water to frustrated passengers.
Eventually we disembarked.
A delay of four hours turned into five, then six, seven ... and the
flight was eventually canceled.
We then had the pleasure of spending the night at an airport hotel
that seemed to have been last updated around the time commercial air
travel started.
It was then that I realized we weren't the only ones encountering
issues with the Dreamliner on Monday.
A Japan Airlines' 787 caught fire in Boston after passengers
disembarked.

Boeing said the fire was traced to a battery unit that helps to power
electrical systems when the engines are idle -- typically while a
plane is being serviced or cleaned. And the company says it's
cooperating with investigators.
As Tuesday morning arrived, we were back on board another United
Airlines' Dreamliner in Los Angeles.
But in a rather comical turn of events, the second plane never left
the gate.
We were told there was an issue with the paperwork filed with the FAA.
More than a day late, many coffees, and very little sleep later, the
third time finally proved to be the charm -- more than 24 hours after
our scheduled departure.
But as we finally took to the skies, more Dreamliner issues were
unfolding.
Another Japan Airlines' 787 in Boston had to scrap a takeoff on
Tuesday due to a fuel leak. And an ANA Dreamliner flight was canceled
in Japan on Wednesday, because of a glitch with its brake system.
But Boeing is standing by its latest aircraft. The company's chief
project engineer, Mike Sinnett, says he is "100% convinced the
airplane is safe to fly."

Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
have "growing pains."
But what is very clear is this was a week that Boeing would certainly
like to forget.
After a nearly 40-hour trip back home, I'll second that.

-- http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/business/dreamliner-los-angeles/

[Vaughn]

On 1/10/2013 3:02 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> Analysts seem not to be alarmed, saying that new aircraft models often
> have "growing pains."

Exactly! The list of aircraft that had to endure a year or three of
teething problems before going on to give decades of excellent service
is long and filled with many famous civil and military aircraft.

The title of this thread is pure nonsense.

[phoenixau...@hotmail.com]

Boeing located their Dreamliner
Manufacturing facility in North Charleston,
S.C. to circumvent the pressure being leveraged
at them by the IAMAW (International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers). By
sidestepping their responsibility of duly
compensating labor and talent, they have
now gotten what they've paid for. There is
a long history in South Carolina of thought
indoctrination which leads to subservience.

This tradition finds it's roots all the
way back to slavery, and cotton-picking.
After the emancipation, share-cropping was
prevalent which was really a different name
for almost the same arrangement. Eventually,
after decades... textile production became
the dominant livelihood. Still, though, the
factories held their workers on a short
leash, even telling them when to go to bed,
what to wear, when to pray and where to live.
Again, not much of a transition.

Today, in 2012 there is a multitude of
industry in South Carolina, but, there
remains a vestige of philosophy that the
worker is the property of the man, that
he keeps his mouth shut and asks no
questions. Unions are seen *by workers* as
inherently bad, yet they can't really tell
you why beyond what they're told to think.

So good luck Boeing. You are a great
corporation, and yes, carbon-fiber was
the right move. When you finally transition
to the blended-body design and electric
propulsion you will have come full circle.
Just remember... you get what you pay for.

Also, I really question the implementation
of JATO bottles for this design and mission.
Whatever dude, use ammonium perchlorate for
best results.

Good night and good luck.

--
Mark

[Vaughn]

I still think it's silly to use the word "failure" but there is more bad
news. "All Nippon Airways has grounded its fleet of 17 Boeing 787
aircraft after one was forced to make an emergency landing because of
battery problems."


Vaughn

[phoenixau...@hotmail.com]

1. In no way can one call this ship a failure. It
is simply still "teething".

2. Lithium batteries are safe and appropriate.
Anything will catch fire, including a rock, if
you put enough voltage to it. The industries
are still learning how to integrate their BMS
with their batteries without having to learn it
empirically.


"The BMS designers may have used Mosfets or Relay contactors. Where the BMS control elements are Mosfets they require sizing for load current and thermal management. If the designers got that wrong, the N Mosfets could burn out with collateral damage to the PCB, possibly causing a short circuit on the board. Relay contactors are more robust and generally the power path is not through the BMS PCB.

BMS design for large format batteries such as those on the Dreamliner requires a conservative approach including secondary cell-by-cell overvoltage protection. According to Ken, this requires an understanding of the full aircraft system, something that may have been tough to come by before the aircraft was operational."

http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/5190/How-Battery-Failure-Grounded-the-Boeing-Dreamliner.aspx

--
Mark
(Post submitted from Dunkin' Doughnuts)

[george152]

And there are those who want electric powered C172s

[phoenixau...@hotmail.com]

Ah, that's easy compared to designing
a dreamliner from scratch. One must manage
the heat sink.

Just think if everything had always been electric
(Henry Ford's wife drove an electric car), and now
all of a sudden we discovered gasoline and jet fuel
but knew little about volatility management.

You think there might occur a fire or two? LOL,
in fact, there still is.

--
Mark

[Transition Zone]

The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,
too. In this case, back up mechanisms didn't seem like they were
there.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4de25f69-93af-479e-88c6-

>The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
>deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,
>too. In this case, back up mechanisms didn't seem like they were
>there.

This isn't the first problem with Lithium batteries:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011.html

[Vaughn]

On 1/25/2013 6:17 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
> The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
> deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,

The A300 was certainly a candidate for grounding after one lost a
vertical stabilizer in 2001 for no apparent reason. Vital parts
failing, falling off, and causing a plane crash with 100% fatalities
sounds a whole lot more difficult to fix that the 787's electrical
problem.

What saved the A300 from grounding? It had been in service since the
late 70's, and therefore had an extensive record of safe service, and
there were hundreds in use so grounding them would have caused worldwide
travel disruption. None of that is true of the 787.

[Too_Many_Tools]

BIG problem.

The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.

To fix the problem and have the recertifications will take time..and
BIG dollars until the plane files again.

I suspect it is a failure to properly oversee system integration
within Boeing.

And where there is smoke there is fire...if the electrical system has
not been properly reviewed it is a KEY signal that there are other
similar oversights.

Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
years...let someone else be the lab rat.

TMT

TMT

[Dave Doe]

In article <e0946792-7772-4dd6-9c22-f053444d4e44
@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com, Too_Many_Tools
says...

Or the wrong (read: cheap) lithium batteries? ...

http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/148.html


--
Duncan.

[Marvin the Martian]

History from 2 years ago.

<http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/11/boeings-za002-
fire-update-poin.html>

Boeing says no big deal. It appears they ignored the problem from the
start. They don't seem to know that fires are a big deal on airplanes.

[Mr.B1ack]

Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure.
Like anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far
these issues haven't caused any fatalities.

Now from a business point of view however ... the plane
may indeed be a failure. It's already got a bad reputation.
As problems with aircraft CAN be fatal, passengers seem
reluctant to fly on them - envisioning themselves burning
to death as they plummet from the skies.

If enough people won't fly on a 787 then there's no point
in airlines HAVING 787s ... and orders will start to be
cancelled. Boeing put a LOT of its money and reputation
on the line with this plane and - oversold its fantastic
wonderfullness - and this could be quite a disaster for
that company and the vast number of employees and
subcontractors involved.

So, I'm gonna offer an idea ... withdraw the aircraft
at once and refund all payments and pre-payments.

Yes, this IS severe ... but there's a part two involved ...

In a year or two, offer a "797" ... which will be
essentially the fixed-up debugged 787 with just
enough cosmetic differences so it'll seem like a
"new" model. This way Boeing gets to use 99% of
the money it spent on R&D - ie it doesn't have to
throw away the 787, just the name.

Furthermore, offer the '797' first in a CARGO variant
and let it rack up a shitload of time in this less
critical kind of service to prove its a worthy craft.
A year later, THEN offer the passenger version - with
its "Proven Perfomance" airframe.

Yes, it'll set Boeing back ... but it'll save it from
destruction. Better late profits than NO profits.

OR ... they can just dissolve the company now and merge
its remaining assets with Airbus. Easier, but not, IMHO,
really the best way to go.

[Delvin Benet]

On 1/25/2013 6:00 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
> Bottom line..if I were actively flying I would NOT fly the 787 for
> years...

Grocery baggers like you don't do much air travel.

[Daryl]

It sounds like they are being overcharged. That is prevented by
a simple card addition that prevents it on only of overcharging
but undercharging. Easy fix.

Daryl

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Daryl]

Shades of Toyota

[F. George McDuffee]

When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you
get it...
-----------------------

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack"
<now...@nada.net> wrote:

<snip>

>Now from a business point of view however ...

<snip>

These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined
as an event that was unanticipated in occupance and limited
in duration, clearly this is no emergency.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/69746-hart-smith-on-outsourcing.html

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/NATL-From-the-Start-Dreamliner-Jet-Program-Was-Rushed--188336221.html

http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2013/01/boeing_problems_draw.php

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2013/01/22/dreamliners-bad-news-is-getting-worse-and-not-just-for-boeing/

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1119071-where-boeing-went-wrong-with-its-787-dreamliner

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-boeing-787-ntsbbre90n08s-20130124,0,2349989.story

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-24/boeings-787-dreamliner-and-the-decline-of-innovation


Its all the unions fault ;-(


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Mr.B1ack]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:

> When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
> -----------------------
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>Now from a business point of view however ...
> <snip>
>
> These URLs may be of interest. If an emergency is defined as an event
> that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
> this is no emergency.

That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
with how potential passengers should act or react.

Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
That's ALL it takes to destroy it.

[Vaughn]

On 1/25/2013 9:54 PM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> As problems with aircraft CAN be fatal, passengers seem
> reluctant to fly on them - envisioning themselves burning
> to death as they plummet from the skies.
>
> If enough people won't fly on a 787

Sorry, that's just not reality. Most folks don't know or care what
model plane they are flying in. They walk down a jetway into a cabin,
and that's all they care about.

Further, we could make a pretty impressive list of planes that have had
terrible, well-known, accidents caused by design issues and continued in
popular service for decades.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Daryl" <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in message
news:kdvkkd$gk0$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> It sounds like they are being overcharged. That is prevented by a
> simple card addition that prevents it on only of overcharging but
> undercharging. Easy fix.
>
> Daryl

The Lithium medical and electric vehicle packs I worked on were
controlled by ICs that monitored and recorded individual cell voltage
and overall charge and discharge current. Those are point measurements
that are easy to do. What's harder is detecting unexpected hot spots
away from the temperature sensors. Minor differences (improvements)
between the acceptance sample and production devices can change heat
flow paths.
http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithium_failures.htm

[Keith W]

Vaughn wrote:
> On 1/25/2013 6:17 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
>> The last time a plane was grounded was what? 1979? That's a big
>> deal. I remember the A320 had an early scuff-up when it started out,
>
> The A300 was certainly a candidate for grounding after one lost a
> vertical stabilizer in 2001 for no apparent reason. Vital parts
> failing, falling off, and causing a plane crash with 100% fatalities
> sounds a whole lot more difficult to fix that the 787's electrical
> problem.
>

The fact that the NTSB enquiry showed that the fust officer had
overstressed the stabilizer by aggressive alternate full rudder
inputs at a relatively high airspeed was a pretty good candidate
for an 'apparent reason' as was the fact that the A300 had flown
into the wake turbulence of a JAL 747-400

Bottom line is that the pilot overstressed the airframe as
his use of alternate full rudder inputs resulted in large
angle of sideslip which tore off the stabilizer. The loads
imposed by the sideslip were more than double the design
limits.

The FAA airframe engineer stated that for any aircraft

" a maneuver with alternating rudder inputs was an extreme maneuver
and that, if the maneuver were performed, loads would build that
would exceed the current requirements. He further stated that, if two
sets of alternating rudder inputs were performed, a series of
dynamic maneuvers would start that could lead the airplane into
a severe dynamic situation where, at the proper frequency, this continued
application of this surface would allow the motion of the
airplane to build up to the point where the sideslip would become
excessive and overload the airplane "

The flight data recorder and CVR showed exactly such a sequence of
rudder inputs was made.

Keith

[Daryl]

I can see a problem that is being addressed in Electric Vehicles.
Heat and cold.

On an electric vehicle, getting the battery too cold will (not
can) result in a degrading of the performance of the cells. The
fix is adding an "Electric Blanket" to keep the battery warm (not
hot). The residual power required by the blanket is negligible.
You get back much more than you lose.

Heat. I can see problems with the Lipo batteries. The battery
they chose is one that is not on the list of Vehicle safe
batteries. It is the best, the highest output but with it comes
problems. Lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), for vehicles, is listed as
unstable compared to the rest. It's very suspeptable to heat.
And sitting on the ground running up on a hot day, the battery
compartment will sky rocket in heat. The safest to use is the
lead acid but it's very short lived in this application. To use
any Lipo battery, it requires a cooling and a heating system to
keep the battery at an optimal temperature. The LCO is just the
worst of the lot for overrunning (catching fire, generating
Oxygen when it burns) than any other Lipo battery.

The Fix? Get rid of the LCO and temperature control the battery
compartment. Even a Lead Acid doesn't like excessive cold or
heat. But it won't turn into a major oxygen fire. Sometimes,
newer isn't better. But the various other Lipo batteries are
safer than the LCO which has a proven track record of burning.

BTW, the LCO isn't the cheapest by far. The LipoMG battery is
the cheapest but it has a low service charge rate. The Lipo4 has
a decent service rate and is what is primarily used in various
vehicle applications. But, maybe, the old Lead Acids may be the
way to go on this one. They are the most stable and the most
safe if you keep them in a wide range of temperatures.

Newer isn't always better.

[Vaughn]

On 1/26/2013 8:18 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Bottom line is that the pilot overstressed the airframe as
> his use of alternate full rudder inputs resulted in large
> angle of sideslip which tore off the stabilizer. The loads
> imposed by the sideslip were more than double the design
> limits.

None of which excuses the design. Pilots are taught from day one that
full deflection of flight controls is generally permissible below a
certain magic "maneuvering speed" without causing harm to the airframe.
Given that the accident flight was in the climb phase, that plane was
almost certainly below that speed.

So this turned out to be a flight limitation that the pilots hadn't been
told about and was nowhere in the flight manual. This DESIGN DEFECT was
"fixed" by changing the flight manual to add new flight limitations and
retraining pilots. To be fair, I know of no other similar accidents
since then.

Going back to my central point, the A300 easily survived that negative
publicity, as will the 787.

[Keith Willshaw]

Vaughn wrote:
> On 1/26/2013 8:18 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Bottom line is that the pilot overstressed the airframe as
>> his use of alternate full rudder inputs resulted in large
>> angle of sideslip which tore off the stabilizer. The loads
>> imposed by the sideslip were more than double the design
>> limits.
>
> None of which excuses the design. Pilots are taught from day one that
> full deflection of flight controls is generally permissible below a
> certain magic "maneuvering speed" without causing harm to the
> airframe. Given that the accident flight was in the climb phase,
> that plane was almost certainly below that speed.
>

Trouble it was at that speed which at the altitude in
question was 250 knots. When the stabilizer failed the
speed was at 251 knots and the pilot had applied full power

> So this turned out to be a flight limitation that the pilots hadn't
> been told about and was nowhere in the flight manual.

True to an extent but the issue was not in an Airbus flight manual
but in an FAA document ( Title 14 CFR 25.1583, "Operating Limitations")

This stated that

<Quote>
that full application of rudder and aileron controls, as
well as maneuvers that involve angles of attack near
the stall, should be confined to speeds below this value."
<Quote>

This was found to be ambiguous in that it implied that multiple
full deflection inputs were safe at or below the safety speed.
This the NTSB and FAA found was not true for most large
transport aircraft and the FAA document was amended to
inform operators that operating at or below maneuvering speed
does NOT provide structural protection against multiple full control
inputs in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the
same time

After the accident Boeing issued the following clarification to its users.

"Boeing aircraft are not designed to a requirement of full authority
rudder reversals from an "over yaw" condition. Sequential full
or nearly full authority rudder reversals may not be within the
structural design limits of the aircraft, even if the airspeed is
below the design manoeuvring speed. "


The AA flight training centre was using faulty
simulator training that encouraged the use multiple
cyclic full rudder inputs to control wake roll
problems and had fostered the mistaken belief that
the rudder limiter would prevent any bad results from
excessive inputs.

The extent of the forces caused by the rudder inputs may be
gauged from the fact that the flight data recorder showed
they caused alternate lateral accelerations of between
0.3 and 0.4 G

> This DESIGN
> DEFECT was "fixed" by changing the flight manual to add new flight
> limitations and retraining pilots. To be fair, I know of no other
> similar accidents since then.
>
> Going back to my central point, the A300 easily survived that negative
> publicity, as will the 787.

I am sure that it will, battery and charging system problems
should be easy to resolve.

Keith

[Marvin the Martian]

Toyota? Ah, where the government was owning the UAW and the big GM execs
for their massive campaign donations, even as they were going bankrupt.

So, Obama:
1) slandered Toyota
2) Gave the UAW and GM execs billions of dollars.
3) Cheated those holding GM bonds out of their money to increase what the
shareholders had.

The only similarity here is that both companies were taken over by
morons. But then, almost all big companies have that problem.

[Michael A. Terrell]

All planes are death traps. You can't pull over to a cloud & call for
a tow, for any of them.

[Transition Zone]

Other planes have made bad splashes into the market or service and
later fared better. Here, I think the battery system was being
strained; i.e. being used without a diesel (jet fuel) powered main
power unit, which all planes on the ground need. Probably human error.

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure.
> Like anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far
> these issues haven't caused any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

> In a year or two, offer a "797" ...

Beoing's 787 didn't have any fatalities. So, I'd say stick with the
current program. (especially, if Airbus weathered and overcame their
mistakes)

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 26, 11:28 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:21:55 -0600, F. George McDuffee wrote:
>
> > > When you want it really really bad, that's generally how you get it...
> > > -----------------------
>

> > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:54:55 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
> > >>Now from a business point of view however ...
> > > <snip>
>
> > > These URLs may be of interest.  If an emergency is defined as an event
> > > that was unanticipated in occupance and limited in duration, clearly
> > > this is no emergency.
>
> >    That's TECHNICAL ... "legal" ... has NOTHING to do
> >    with how potential passengers should act or react.
>
> >    Passengers are convinced the 787 is a death-trap.
> >    That's ALL it takes to destroy it.
>
>    All planes are death traps.

No, this isn't the 1930's anymore.

> You can't pull over to a cloud & call for a tow, for any of them.

Since then, you hardly ever have crashes because of all-weather
designs, flight patterns and glide paths (in case you need to land).

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:42:01 -0600, "Mr.B1ack" <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

You are convinced passengers are convinced. There have been no deaths,
no injuries, and only limitted damage to this point. A minor tweek
will likely solve the battery problem. It appears to be a problem with
the APU not knowing how to handle Lithium batteries, as the problem
occurs when on the ground with the APU running the system.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 06:46:22 -0700, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com>
wrote:

Lead acid is and has for quite some time been a "non-starter" for the
application - for good reason.Nicads have been the standard for
decades - and have their issues as well Lithium iron would be a better
choice .

[Marvin the Martian]

I love it when people who have no fucking idea what's going on, make shit
up like "a minor tweek will fix it".

[Michael A. Terrell]

Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
> I love it when people who have no fucking idea what's going on, make shit
> up like "a minor tweek will fix it".

Why? Just because that's what they said when they took you to the
veterinarian to have you neutered?

[Delvin Benet]

The planes have been grounded. They will fly again. When they do,
people will fly on them.

[Mr.B1ack]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:

> On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like anything
>> complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues haven't caused
>> any fatalities.
>
> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
> on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
> Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.

Irrevelant.

It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
dangerous.

That's all-important.

That's all that counts.

The 787 is *done*.

[Marvin the Martian]

Wow, you're clever. You must know everything given you have such a wit.

No, the point being that NO ONE knows what the problem is. If it was a
"minor tweek", they would have fixed it after the FIRST fire.

[Vaughn]

On 1/27/2013 2:19 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> Irrevelant.
>
> It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
> dangerous.
>
> That's all-important.

And also wrong. The average airline traveler has no clue what model

plane they are flying in.
>

> That's all that counts.
>
> The 787 is*done*.

Nonsense. It's barely entered operation, and it's way too early to make
that kind of judgement. This is a totally new plane working through the
inevitable kinks. If history serves as any guide, we will be flying in
787's and it's follow on models for many decades to come.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Utter nonsense;

The average person doesn't have a clue there is any problem as they don't
read those little backpage articles about equipment problems.

Now, if one had burned up in flight killing a couple of hundred people,
then they would have noticed.

The recent in flight engine lightening strike and fire with no casualties
has gotten far more press than 787 battery issues.

<snip idioitic crossposts>

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
relatively minor tweek.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
> ...

> When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
>relatively minor tweek.

> ...

I don't think replacing the batteries with a safer, heavier
technology and redesigning/recertifying the electrical systems
of the plane can even be called a "tweak," let alone a "minor
tweak."

|
| MIT Professor: Battery Fix Could Ground 787 Until 2014
| ...
| In a nutshell, Sadoway thinks that Boeing needs to monitor
| the temperature and cool each of the eight cells of the
| 787's lithium-ion battery or switch to an older battery
| technology that has a far better safety record -- nickel
| metal-hydride (NiMH).
|
| If Boeing opts to substitute NiMH for lithium-ion,
| certification could result in delays of up to a year --
| effectively grounding the 787 until 2014.
| ...
| When Sadoway got a look at the lithium-ion battery used in
| the 787, he was surprised by "the seeming absence of a
| cooling apparatus."
| ...
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/01/27/mit-professor-battery-fix-could-ground-787-until-2014/>

--bks

[george152]

On 28/01/13 08:13, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
> relatively minor tweek.
>

In 10 years time the B787 will still be flying with the same unit on
board and the pundits will be moaning about the inadequacies of the new
airliner coming into service

[Marvin the Martian]

Right. The APU is complex, ergo the solution will be simple.

Or maybe you're trying to say, the APU is simple, so the solution will be
simple.

Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
system. Which kinda makes you claims absurd meaningless and laughable
prattle.

You sound good, tho'. Keep pontificating! Maybe you'll fool someone into
thinking you know something.

So, how many days has it been? Where is that simple tweek!?

LOL!

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> >> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like anything
> >> complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues haven't caused
> >> any fatalities.
>
> > But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly fatalities
> > on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at Mulhouse-Habsheim
> > Airport.  Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.
>
>    Irrevelant.
>
>    It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being
>    dangerous.

And the A320 didn't?

> That's all-important.
>
> That's all that counts.
>
>The 787 is *done*.

I *way* doubt that.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:19:51 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

> <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>> ...
>> When you look at the complexity of the APU unit, it WILL be a
>>relatively minor tweek.
>> ...
>
>I don't think replacing the batteries with a safer, heavier
>technology and redesigning/recertifying the electrical systems
>of the plane can even be called a "tweak," let alone a "minor
>tweak."
>

You can be fairly safe to bet that the batteries will not be replaced
with heavier old tech batteries. The charging system will be fixed -
and you will be safe to bet it will be a "relatively minor tweek" to
the system. It will not be a total re-design of the APU system. The
batteries do not overheat if they are not abused. The charge control
system is abusing the battery, causing it to overheat. They may need
to redisign the battery pack to add cooling to prevent damage IF they
overheat - but the first thing is to fix the charging system so they
do NOT overheat.

I also question why they used lithium Cobalt batteries - slightly
higher energy density than the safer Lithium Iron Phosphate or Lithium
Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide batteries, at the expense of a higher
danger of thermal run-away. Perhaps a change to one or the other of
these chemistries instead of the Lithium Cobalts will be required as
well.

> |
> | MIT Professor: Battery Fix Could Ground 787 Until 2014
> | ...
> | In a nutshell, Sadoway thinks that Boeing needs to monitor
> | the temperature and cool each of the eight cells of the
> | 787's lithium-ion battery or switch to an older battery
> | technology that has a far better safety record -- nickel
> | metal-hydride (NiMH).

Anything with a potassium Hydroxide electrolyte is a poor choice in
aircraft with aluminum structure. The 787 has a lot of high strength
composite, but aluminum is still a structural component. The 2
materials do not peaceably co-exist - in case of a leak there are
risks - which have been managed so far with Ni-Cads in aircraft use -
but they are NOT benign. NiCad and NimH both ose pottassium Hydroxide.

They are also not immune to overheating - they just boil the
Pottassium Hydroxide out, damaging the plane instead of burning. Not
quite as serious, in the short term - but perhaps just as damaging in
the long term?

In my opinion, going back to NiCad or Nimh would be a big step
backwards - as well as requiring a complete recertification of the
system.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian

Just because the tweek will be minor does not mean figuring it out
will be simple. And getting it signed off will not be a simple matter
either - we ARE dealing with certified aircraft.
I suspect there will be some reprogramming of the charging system and
a possible switch to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiPo ) cells from the LCo
(Lithium Cobalt Oxide) batteries that caused a lot of consternation in
portable devices, like laptops, a few years ago. I cannot understand
why LCo batteries were spec'ed instead of LIPo or LNMC cells. The
relatively minor power density advantage is hard to balance against
the known issues with LCO cells. The LCO cells CAN be safely used
with proper controls - but the risk is still there.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>> ...

>You can be fairly safe to bet that the batteries will not be replaced
>with heavier old tech batteries. The charging system will be fixed -

> ...

|
| U.S. investigators examining the battery charger from a
| Boeing Co. (BA) 787 that caught fire this month in Boston
| have found no evidence of flaws that could have caused the
| incident.
| ...
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-27/battery-charger-aboard-787-cleared-in-fire-investigation>

--bks

[F. George McDuffee]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:25:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

<snip>

>Either way, you're ignoring the complexity of the entire electrical
>system.

<snip>

Which ignores the fact that the plane was three years late
in delivery, giving ample time to have constructed a
prototype or mock-up of the entire battery/power system
with extra sensors, and conducted exhaustive
cycling/simulations including charging/powering with a
verity of GPUs. This would appear to have been highly
prudent given the news items of electric cars with the same
or similar power storage bursting into flames, and the loss
of an entire factory when a prototype cell under test
exploded.

Indeed, with the advantage of hindsight, the type of lithium
cells used should have been retrofitted to some existing
aircraft (cargo to start) and tested under actual
operating/flying conditions after these were proven "safe."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577337704120872184.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-11/gm-volt-battery-fire-is-said-to-prompt-u-s-probe-into-electric-car-safety.html

http://www.battcon.com/PapersFinal2007/ScuillaPaper2007.pdf


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[Vaughn]

On 1/27/2013 5:39 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
> giving ample time to have constructed a
> prototype or mock-up of the entire battery/power system
> with extra sensors, and conducted exhaustive
> cycling/simulations including charging/powering with a
> verity of GPUs.

Do you actually have a reference that says they never did any of that
stuff? Or are you just blowing smoke?

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Washington - Further testing still has not found the cause
| of a battery fire aboard a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in Boston
| earlier this month, the National Transportation Safety
| Board said on Sunday.
|
| In a statement released on Sunday, the safety regulator
| said "no obvious anomalies were found" in its initial
| investigation of an undamaged battery aboard the plane and
| that a more detailed examination would follow.
| ...
| Oliver McGee, an aerospace and mechanical engineer who was
| a deputy assistant secretary of transportation for
| technology policy under President Bill Clinton and a former
| consultant to Boeing, described the challenge facing the
| investigators as a "megascale engineering puzzle".
| ...
<http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/cause-of-boeing-fire-eludes-team-1.1459385>

Redesign, recertify, redeploy.

--bks

[Daryl]

Fairly easy answer. The LCO has the highest power density of all
the Lithium batteries. And it can sustain the highest discharge
rate. Unfortunately, it also has the narrowest range of
operating temperatures and creates the nastiest fire when it ignites.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Mr.B1ack]

Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.

And I think you'll find a lot of other
people with the same sentiment.

Boeing should have spent another six months
to a year debugging the thing ... but they
were already behind schedule and afraid to
wait any longer. Bad move. Understandable
from the business POV, but still bad. Now
it'll be even worse from the business POV.

The engineers oughtta decide when a big plane
is "ready" ... not the pointy-haired executives.
If one of these things catches fire and nosedives
into a city, thousands could die.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>

> > On Jan 27, 2:19Â am, "Mr.B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
> >> > On Jan 25, 9:54Â pm, "Mr.B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> >> >> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
> >> >> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues
> >> >> haven't caused any fatalities.
> >>
> >> > But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
> >> > fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at

> >> > Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Â Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.
> >>
> >> Â Â Irrevelant.
> >>
> >> Â Â It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.

> >
> > And the A320 didn't?
> >
> >> That's all-important.
> >>
> >> That's all that counts.
> >>
> >>The 787 is *done*.
> >
> > I *way* doubt that.
>
> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.

You're on the banned list?

[Delvin Benet]

On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
>>>> On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
>>>>> Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
>>>>> anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these issues
>>>>> haven't caused any fatalities.
>>>
>>>> But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
>>>> fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
>>>> Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. Airbus's A380 had terrible delays, too.
>>>
>>> Irrevelant.
>>>
>>> It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.
>>
>> And the A320 didn't?
>>
>>> That's all-important.
>>>
>>> That's all that counts.
>>>
>>> The 787 is *done*.
>>
>> I *way* doubt that.
>
>
> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.

I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787 until it
had been in service for a year or so.

This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome it.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
> ...

>This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
>hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll overcome it.

When?
| ...
| "Stopping production is not going to happen," said Carter
| Leake, an aerospace analyst with BB&T Capital Markets. A
| halt in production or even a slow down would risk crucial
| suppliers going out of business. "They need to keep the
| lines running to support the supply chain. They can't do
| that to suppliers that barely survived the three year delay
| in producing the first plane."
| ...
<http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/25/news/companies/boeing-dreamliner-production/index.html>

--bks

[Bug Dout]

Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> writes:

> The batteries are obviously being overcharged..a system problem.
Not necessarily. They may simply be too big to properly handle modest
fluctuations in heat even under proper charge. That's an even bigger
problem.
--
Who depends on another man's table often dines late.
--John Ray

[Mr.B1ack]

They'll overcome it - technically - but will that
help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public
thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy
any ? Switch to Airbus instead.

Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ?
The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they
had to change it to "Jet-Blue".

I don't think Boeing can try that trick.

Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging
them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead.
Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will
*seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will
be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787,
but *perception* is what's gonna count.

BTW ... it wasn't actually the batteries. Something
in the charge/charge-regulatation electronics. If
someone else made it, Boeing can blame 'em. If not
then it's a black mark against Boeing.

Given the volume of problems in such a short time,
hey, didn't Boeing TEST the damned planes ? Short
answer - no ... not enough. They were behind in
delivery and decided to test 'em with live human
guinea-pigs.

Ya didn't see the CEO or board members flying on
the things, did ya ? :-)

[Bug Dout]

"Mr.B1ack" <now...@nada.net> writes:

> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.
>
> And I think you'll find a lot of other
> people with the same sentiment.

"a lot", that would be 100 people, 100 times more people than you, yes,
that's a lot! The fact people buy tickets based on the cheapest online
price and ignore all the baggage fees, etc. shows that people simply do
not know or care what model of airplane they fly.

I think you're a troll for Airbus. Or, one of those wacky right-wing
conspiracy kooks.

[.metalworking?? .unions??]
--
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
-- Mark Twain

[Keith W]

erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite
different airline

> Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging
> them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead.
> Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will
> *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will
> be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787,
> but *perception* is what's gonna count.
>

Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet.

The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor
engineering issues that caused them to be grounded for
a while including the new Airbus 380


Keith

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| What, then, is wrong with the Dreamliner?
|
| "I think people had their fingers crossed that it was a
| battery fault," Keith Hayward, head of research at the
| Royal Aeronautical Society, told BBC. "It looks more
| systemic and serious to me. I suspect it could be difficult
| to identify the cause."
| ...
<http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0128/Boeing-787-battery-passes-initial-probe.-What-s-wrong-with-the-Dreamliner>

--bks

[Mr.B1ack]

You're right ... "ValueJet" became "AirTran" to
escape its stigma.

>> Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging them ... then
>> re-issue them as the '797' instead. Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ...
>> then it will *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will be
>> avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787, but *perception* is
>> what's gonna count.
>>
>>
> Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet.

Pick another nit.

> The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor engineering
> issues that caused them to be grounded for a while including the new
> Airbus 380

I'll say it ONCE more ... 'reality' doesn't MATTER.
Public PERCEPTION matters. That perception is immune
to reason, to evidence, to statistics. It's a emotion
thing.

And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
deathtrap.

[Mr.B1ack]

NOT a battery fault ... something in the circuitry
that monitors and controls the charge state. Could
be rather minor - and under-rated low-ohm resistor,
a cheapo Chinese cap or inductor ... or it could be
further up, in the software.

In the first case it means that EVERYTHING that uses
similar components, and/or was designed by the same
engineers, has to be taken apart and torture-tested.
In the second case ... COULD be a local firmware
glitch - assuming they're using "smart" modules -
or it COULD be in the system software. The former
is less of a big deal - such control programs tend
to be relatively short. If the system software
is nanny to this and more components however ....

[Bradley K. Sherman]

|
| Short of a breakthrough in the investigation into the two
| battery fires, this Wednesday will mark the start of the
| third week Boeing's 787s will have been grounded. Now,
| hundreds of engineers, many of whom worked to get the jet
| certified to begin with, are back at work trying to figure
| out where Boeing goes from here.
|
| They're working in teams, and multiple sources with
| knowledge of the company say Boeing's strategy is as
| follows.
|
| 1. Find the root cause of the battery incidents. Engineers
| are working with the National Transportation Safety Board
| and the Federal Aviation Administration to get to the
| bottom of a battery fire in Boston and a smoking battery
| aboard a second jet in Japan.
| 2. Get airborne. How to prepare for a range of fixes to
| comply as soon as possible with the FAA's airworthiness
| directive that grounded the jets on January 16.
| 3. Scenario planning. What if the use of lithium ion
| batteries was banned altogether, or regulators made another
| major move that would force Boeing to redesign the
| electrical architecture of the 787.
| ...
<http://www.king5.com/news/local/What-does-Boeing-need-to-do-to-get-787s-flying-188770201.html>

--bks

[Mr.B1ack]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:49:55 -0800, Bug Dout wrote:

> "Mr.B1ack" <now...@nada.net> writes:
>
>> Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.
>>
>> And I think you'll find a lot of other people with the same
>> sentiment.
>
> "a lot", that would be 100 people, 100 times more people than you, yes,
> that's a lot! The fact people buy tickets based on the cheapest online
> price and ignore all the baggage fees, etc. shows that people simply do
> not know or care what model of airplane they fly.

You sound like a Boeing subcontractor ...

> I think you're a troll for Airbus. Or, one of those wacky right-wing
> conspiracy kooks.

I don't care for the AirBus safety record either.

This is one of those cases where capitalism works
against us. The competitors tend to rush these very
complex machines out the door, trying to stay ahead
of each other. A modern airliner is at least as
complex as a space shuttle ... and they always had
problems with those (usually with tri/quad redundancy
to save their asses).

IMHO, especially given the disaster possibilities,
airliner manufacturers should NOT be using the
public as their beta testers to "work out the
kinks". The planes should be READY before the
first passenger buys a ticket. There needs to
be more regs and govt oversight.

(does that sound ultraright-wing ? :-)

[Dave Doe]

In article <OsCdnceLwPuTpZrM...@earthlink.com>,
now...@nada.net, Mr.B1ack says...

Posted again...

http://www.luxresearchinc.com/news-and-events/press-releases/148.html

--
Duncan.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the
> perception of the 787 becoming that of a flaming
> deathtrap.

Who has died aboard a 787?

[Delvin Benet]

No one.

How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
been ordered out of service?

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

So far EVERYTHING, including the opinions of the so-called experts
is just speculation. The smoking gun has not been found yet.

MY opinion is still that it will be found to be a relatively simple
tweek - but they MAY end up switching from Lithium Cobalt Oxide to a
different lithium chemistry as a precaution and to re-assure the
public that a mistreated battery won't cause a fire in flight.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
aircraft accidents in 50 years.
Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every
day.

[Delvin Benet]

Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/

The point is, within any *given* mode of transportation, people don't
want to use dangerous vehicles if they have a choice, /ceteris paribus/.
If the 787 is dangerous and a 777 isn't, people will want to fly on
the 777.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4ZqdnVrwRseNoZrM...@earthlink.com...

Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
jsw

[Michael A. Terrell]

Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727. The
other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.

[Max Boot]

You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in the
world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride from your
shack.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message
news:b4ddf$5107e777$414e828e$30...@EVERESTKC.NET...

> On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>>
>>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to
>>> stall
>>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew?
>>> jsw
>>
>

> You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in
> the world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride
> from your shack.

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/rapport.final.en.php
CVR 2h 11m 43.0
"qu'est-ce qui se passe ? je ne sais pas je sais pas ce qui se passe"
"on a tout perdu le contrôle de l'avion on comprend rien on a tout
tenté"

It doesn't take much to bring out the angry frustrated child in you.

[Mr.B1ack]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:58:11 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:

> On 1/28/2013 8:39 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:28:36 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/28/2013 7:03 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception of
>>>>> the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>>>
>>> No one.
>>>
>>> How many people are afraid they might have died in one if they hadn't
>>> been ordered out of service?
>>
>>
>> More people die on american roads in one year than have died in
>> aircraft accidents in 50 years.
>> Every year 47 Americans die on the road for every one who dies in the
>> air or coming out of it. Yet people get into cars and busses every day.
>
> Sure, but considering only safety, would you rather drive a Nissan 350Z
> with 143 driver fatalities per million registered vehicle years, or a
> BMW 7 series with only 11 fatalities per million?
> http://www.statisticbrain.com/driver-fatality-stats-by-auto-make/

Is the problem the CAR ... or the kind of people
who buy it and how they DRIVE it ? :-)

I can put a conservative old fart on a kick-ass
Ninja rice-rocket and he can ride it a million
miles without so much as a ticket or dent. Hand
the same bike to some testosterone-overdosed
punk and he'd be lucky to make it to the corner
store without leaving a deep imprint in the
side of an SUV.

[Mr.B1ack]

Though, oddly, those cosmopolitan euros will flock
over on their tourist bus to take a million photos
of his mule and shack ... "Rustic Americana", very
artsy-fartsy dontchaknow :-)

[Michael A. Terrell]

I haven't seen a mule since the '60s. I've seen plenty of European
tourrists who could give a mule a lessons on how to be stubborn. Orlando
was crawling with them when I worked there as an engineer.

As far as Max, how long has that size 17 US made cowboy boot been up
your sorry ass?

[Stormin Mormon]

I suspect that Michael Terrell has fewer sexual
transmitted diseases, regrets, abortions, and
mystery illness than the typical cosmo European.

I know I sure have fewer regrets than you
cosmo folks. And, I like it that way. Now, I've
got to go shovel up after my mule.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message
>

[Stormin Mormon]

I'm such a person. I drive under the speed limit, most of
the time, and prefer to arrive safely. If I had a kick ass
Ninja rice burning crotch rocket, I'd probably not get it
past about 35 MPH on the Thruway.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Mr.B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message
news:54GdnV1yuqCSc5rM...@earthlink.com...

[Stormin Mormon]

He could have his ass on the cover of Cosmo?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Mr.B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message

news:54GdnVxyuqBdc5rM...@earthlink.com...

[Jim Wilkins]

"Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message

news:b4ddf$5107e777$414e828e$30...@EVERESTKC.NET...

>
> You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
> mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in
> the world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride
> from your shack.
>

The most egregious example I've heard of that pissant cultural
snobbery was from Indian expats who couldn't understand how their
sophisticated ancient culture had been overtaken by Northern Europeans
who lived in wattle and daub (mud) huts until very recently, by their
time frame.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61***spam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L3TNs.164734$f14....@fed01.iad...

>
> I know I sure have fewer regrets than you
> cosmo folks. And, I like it that way. Now, I've
> got to go shovel up after my mule.
>
> Christopher A. Young

Any illusion of culture Alistair Cooke may have given us went down the
loo when we saw Benny Hill and Mr. Bean.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:58:11 -0800, Delvin Benet <DB@nbc.nýt> wrote:

>On 1/28/2013 8:39 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

The most dangerous part on a 350Z is generally the nut holding the
wheel.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Like the nut holding the wheel of the 350z, the pilots of that plane
were awfully close to brain dead to allow that to happen. They were
just playing a video game - NOT FLYING THE PLANE. All the warnings
were there except for the indicators on the instrument panel.

[Jim Wilkins]

<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:mh2gg8htu8a42b9b3...@4ax.com...

All the warnings were NOT there, and the ones they had were
misleading. The stall indicator shut off below a minimum airspeed and
came on when they correctly put the nose down and gained speed. The
stalled plane remained fairly level and controllable in pitch as it
fell at a very low forward airspeed, a condition the FCS apparently
didn't understand. Roll control was harder and kept them occupied.
They advanced the throttles to TakeOff/Go-Around power and kept the
nose slightly high, which SHOULD have been the proper procedure if
they'd had more airspeed. At night in a storm they were purely on IFR,
with no visual cues and airspeed indicators that had been and could
still be(?) reading low only because they had iced up.

[Max Boot]

What cultural snobbery are you pissing and moaning about? Are you
saying that you resent people who are well traveled and knowledgeable
about other parts of the world telling you what a benighted bumpkin you
are? The average American *is* a benighted bumpkin. It's the height of
the most despicable and dangerous arrogance that the US presumes to
dictate to the rest of the world how things ought to be, and the vast
majority of Americans have no fucking clue about how any other part of
the world actually is. It's exactly that kind of ignorance mixed with
arrogance that produced the two monumentally disastrous wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

[Max Boot]

Struck a nerve, I see. I'm guessing you've never traveled. In fact,
it's all but a certainty.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message

news:b3165$51082126$414e828e$64...@EVERESTKC.NET...

> On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
smashed into the ocean?

Such fragile egos!

[Stormin Mormon]

I learned all my English culture and manners from
Monty Python's Flying Circus.

My horse likes to watch Mr. Rogers' Neigh......
borhood.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ke90me$roa$1...@dont-email.me...

[Max Boot]

Okay, so you're not just an untraveled rube and bumpkin, you're also
hyper-nationalistic and sensitive about being an untraveled rube.

I haven't seen anything to suggest Europeans are "crucifying" [sic]
Boeing over the battery problem. You seem to be trying to downplay it.
It's a serious problem, and it has led to the *American* FAA grounding
all the planes. While ice in the pitot tubes is suspected of producing
the faulty airspeed readings, the main cause of the crash of the Air
France A330 was pilot error. They might conceivably have safely flown
the plane either back to Brazil or on to France. By contrast, if a
battery fire in a 787 ever spread, the plane most likely would crash.

The battery problem is serious and needs to be corrected, and not
pooh-poohed by insanely nationalistic Americans who stupidly read too
much into a Boeing-Airbus competition. Also...Americans need to get out
of their general provincialism.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Max Boot" <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in message

news:67eb3$510822a4$414e828e$64...@EVERESTKC.NET...

> On 1/29/2013 7:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> Struck a nerve, I see. I'm guessing you've never traveled. In
> fact, it's all but a certainty.

Don't hire yourself out as a detective.

I wore out a set of Reifen travelling around Europe as a field sevice
repairman for two years.

[Mr.B1ack]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:22:21 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:13:58 -0800, Max Boot wrote:
>>
>> > On 1/29/2013 7:04 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >>> news:4ZqdnVrwRseNoZrM...@earthlink.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>> >>>>> And Boeing didn't spin fast enough to prevent the perception
>> >>>>> of the 787 becoming that of a flaming deathtrap.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Who has died aboard a 787?
>> >>>
>> >>> Has Airbus fixed the faults that allowed a functional A330 to stall
>> >>> and fall out of the sky without informing its crew? jsw
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not that I know of. The newest plane I've flown on was a 727.
>> >> The
>> >> other was a DC10. I flew to Alaska & back from Ohio in the '70s and
>> >> have never needed to go anywhere by plane since.
>> >
>> > You are the classic example of why cosmopolitan Europeans and Asians
>> > mock Americans: a bumpkin, a rube, someone who thinks everything in
>> > the world worth seeing and knowing is within a two hour mule ride
>> > from your shack.
>>
>> Though, oddly, those cosmopolitan euros will flock over on their
>> tourist bus to take a million photos of his mule and shack ...

>> "Rustic Americana", very artsy-fartsy dontchaknow.

> I haven't seen a mule since the '60s.

They've built a better one :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KYnbwXTMXA

> I've seen plenty of European
> tourrists who could give a mule a lessons on how to be stubborn. Orlando
> was crawling with them when I worked there as an engineer.

Oh gawd ... Orlando ..... the holy hajj to The Rat ......

> As far as Max, how long has that size 17 US made cowboy boot been up
> your sorry ass?

I thought hillbillies went barefoot ... makes it
easier to sneak up on their sisters :-)

[Transition Zone]

On Jan 29, 3:02 pm, Max Boot <max.b...@lathymes.com> wrote:
> On 1/29/2013 11:40 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>

> > "Max Boot" <max.b...@lathymes.com> wrote in message

> >news:b3165$51082126$414e828e$64...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> >> On 1/29/2013 8:50 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>
> > So Europeans are fully justified in crucifying Boeing over a battery
> > that harmed no one, but Americans MUST NOT embarrassingly mention the
> > fatal crash of an Airbus that was in perfect working condition when it
> > smashed into the ocean?
>
> > Such fragile egos!
>
> Okay, so you're not just an untraveled rube and bumpkin, you're also
> hyper-nationalistic and sensitive about being an untraveled rube.
>
>I haven't seen anything to suggest Europeans are "crucifying" [sic]
> Boeing over the battery problem.  You seem to be trying to downplay it.
>  It's a serious problem, and it has led to the *American* FAA
grounding
> all the planes.  While ice in the pitot tubes is suspected of producing
>the faulty airspeed readings, the main cause of the crash of the Air
> France A330 was pilot error.

That was the same ruling for the A310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in
Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). Its like it just ran out of fuel and
fell out of the sky or something.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c67b5f86-745c-46fc-9534-
>That was the same ruling for theA310 Hapag-Lloyd Flight 3378 crash in

>Vienna (back on July 12, 2000). Its like it just ran out of fuel and
>fell out of the sky or something.

The wiki says the landing gear wouldn't fully retract and the FMS
miscalculated their remaining range. They aborted to Vienna and had to
glide the last 20km, hitting 500m short.

[Max Boot]

Yes, of course. Europeans are interested in learning how primitives live.

[Max Boot]

No, that's not what happened at all. It had an unretracted landing gear
that caused it to burn fuel faster than expected. The crew used a
flight management system that estimated how far they could go on the
remaining fuel, but that system did not take into account the effect of
increased drag, so they ran out even earlier than anticipated and had to
glide the aircraft toward an airport, which they didn't reach by 500 meters.

Get your facts straight next time.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Don't forget Monty Python & the Lumberjack song.

[Michael A. Terrell]

I wouldn't know. Is tht how your sister got pregnant 16 times?

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Sixth NTSB update:
|
| January 29
|
| WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety Board today
| released the sixth update on its investigation into the
| Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan
| International Airport in Boston.
|
| The examination of the damaged battery continues. The work
| has transitioned from macroscopic to microscopic
| examinations and into chemical and elemental analysis of
| the areas of internal short circuiting and thermal damage.
|
| Examination and testing of the exemplar battery from the
| JAL airplane has begun at the Carderock Division of the
| Naval Surface Warfare Center laboratories. Detailed
| examinations will be looking for signs of in-service damage
| and manufacturing defects. The test program will include
| mechanical and electrical tests to determine the
| performance of the battery, and to uncover signs of any
| degradation in expected performance.
|
| As a party contributing to the investigation, Boeing is
| providing pertinent fleet information, which will help
| investigators understand the operating history of
| lithium-ion batteries on those airplanes.
|
| An investigative group continued to interpret data from the
| two digital flight data recorders on the aircraft, and is
| examining recorded signals to determine if they might yield
| additional information about the performance of the battery
| and the operation of the charging system.
|
| In addition to the activities in Washington, investigators
| are continuing their work in Seattle and Japan.
|
| Additional information on the NTSB's investigation of the
| Japan Airlines B-787 battery fire in Boston is available at
| http://go.usa.gov/4K4J.
|
| The NTSB will provide another factual update on Friday,
| Feb. 1, or earlier if developments warrant. To be alerted
| to any updates or developments, follow the NTSB on Twitter
| at www.twitter.com/ntsb.
|
<http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130129b.html>

--bks